SC · rules
SCRE 407
Subsequent Remedial Measures
When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less
likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable
conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of
subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or
feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
Note:
This rule is identical to the federal rule. The general rule that evidence of subsequent
measures is inadmissible to establish negligence is consistent with South Carolina law.
Green v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 136 S.C. 337, 134 S.E. 385 (1926). Under South
Carolina law another stated purpose for admitting evidence of subsequent measures
is to show the conditions existing at the time of the event or accident. Taylor v. Nix,
307 S.C. 551, 416 S.E.2d 619 (1992); Plunkett v. Clearwater Bleachery Mfg. Co., 80 S.C.
310, 61 S.E. 431 (1906); see also Eargle v. Sumter Lighting Co., 110 S.C. 560, 96 S.E. 909
(1918).
Provenance
- Source
- www.sccourts.org
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-02
- Edition
- supplied-sc-04-print-version-2026-10-02
- Content hash
dedebcb1bf4eb4a6a9e76ba15eeba61787f6e5cb220865d74a250f80ce3f7e56
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.